But if you really want to understand the horrifying absurdity of the welfare state, check out these passages from a report in the Daily Mail.

Carl Cooper thought he was doing a public service by offering seven benefits claimants the chance to work for him. But the company boss was flabbergasted when none of them turned up on the first day. Astonishingly, not a single one even had the courtesy to tell the marketing firm boss they would not be coming in. Mr Cooper and other staff members called the new employees to ask them where they were. Initially, some refused to answer their phones when they recognised the number calling them. When the staff finally got through, five said they would be better off staying on state benefits rather than doing the commission-based work. Four of the seven also claimed torrential rain had put them off.

Wow. Five out of seven admitted that mooching off the taxpayers was a better way to live. What does that tell us about the over-generosity of handouts?

Lets continue.

Mr Cooper, who runs Car Smart, a marketing firm for independent car dealers in Canterbury, Kent, criticised the benefits system and said it rewarded people for doing nothing. He added: I was left stunned when none of the new recruits turned up for work. They are a bunch of workshy layabouts. These are people who are so morally twisted that they would rather stay on the dole than work. People keep saying there are not enough jobs in the UK but the real problem is that there are not enough determined or ambitious people. The benefit system is too generous and encourages the unemployed to stay unemployed and just breeds more laziness.

But its even worse than Mr. Cooper realizes. Hell still be paying these people, but in the form of taxes that then get redistributed to subsidize idleness.

You might think the moochers would lose their benefits because they chose laziness over work, but you would be wrong.

Mr Cooper said all his employees received a basic retainer of £100 a week initially and are enrolled on to the companys commission structure, which could see earnings rise to up to £400 a week. The jobseekers who failed to turn up will not lose their benefits because the basic pay is under the minimum wage.

I found the above story via Kyle Smith, who also cites a story from the Times about a crazy proposal to have bureaucrats scrub floors and serve as human alarm clocks for the welfare class.

Town hall officials have been told to get down on their hands and knees and clean the floors of the homes they visit under David Camerons Troubled Families programme. They have also been urged to turn up at family homes at 7am if necessary to get parents out of bed and children ready for school on time. The orders were issued by the programme head, Louise Casey I want to see people rolling up their sleeves and getting down and cleaning the floors if that is what needs to be done. If a family needs to be shown how to heat up a pizza, show them how to do it. If it takes going round three times a week at 7am to get Mum up, then do it.

I would have included a link to the underlying story, but the Times has the most incompetently designed website Ive ever encountered (presumably because they want to charge, but they dont even give you a chance to click on the story and then pay).

Anyhow, I have three quick reactions to this bit of foolishness.

1. Id like to see the head bureaucrat, Ms. Casey, spend a month scrubbing floors and waking people up at 7:00 a.m. She strikes me as the typical leftist clown, sitting in an office enjoying a cushy and overpaid job while dreaming up absurd ideas on how to waste taxpayer money. Maybe if she gets her hands dirty by rolling up [her] sleeves, shell learn the difference between blackboard theorizing and the real world.

2. My gut reaction is that the government should cut the handouts to these dysfunctional households. For every day the welfare bums arent up on time to get their kids to school, they lose 10 percent of their loot. If their floors are dirty, thats another 10 percent. If you want to change their behavior, start cutting into the budget for cigarettes and booze.

3. More realistically, were dealing with a problem of people who have little if any self-respect, and they pass horrible habits to their children. Kicking them off the dole might wake up some of them, but I suspect more than a few of them are past the point of no return. Society would probably be better off if their kids were put in foster homes, but Im sure government would screw that up as well.

Stories like this leave me increasingly convinced that the only good approach is radical decentralization. Get these programs out of capital cities like Washington and London. The U.S. welfare reform was a decent start, but get responsibility to the local level. And in cities, put neighborhoods in charge. Have those small communities in charge of raising the money and spending the money.

That approach is far more likely to generate good ideas and good solutions, though I confess Im pessimistic about anything working.

But we should figure out ways to stop inter-generational poverty and welfare. I gather its considered bad form to suggest mandatory birth control for welfare recipients, so has anyone proposed a different approach that might work?

I watched a TV show about gypsies and one of the couples was in England. The wife living a trailer with her baby. She got tired of that lifestyle and bang, the next time you see here she is in a pretty nice apartment and is telling the show producer where her big screen telly was going to hang.. I mean how does that work? “Hello UK Public Services I want a free apartment for me and my kid. Thank you”

21
posted on 04/29/2012 9:29:17 AM PDT
by central_va
( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)

The UK is a perfect audio-visual aid for the kind of socialist welfare state Ubama and the rats want for the US. The welfare crowd is, after all, the Democrat Party “base”. Why wouldn’t the rats want their voter base to be as large as possible? This ain’t rocket surgery.

This article discussing conditions in the United Kingdom remind us that "Ideas Have Consequences" (Weaver). Whether those ideas are in place in the society in the late 1700's or in 2012, when implemented, they have predictable results for those who wish to study and understand them.

Obama and his fellow "redistributionists" don't point that out, for to do so would reveal the scam such politicians run on uninformed citizens. Europe now presents an example of consequences of such thinking, just as it did in the 1700's and 1800's.

The problem with today's Administration in America is that they studied and are devoted to the the ideas of Marx, Lenin, and Keynes when they should have been reading Adam Smith and America's founders. Had they digested the ideas which made America a place of freedom, opportunity, prosperity and plenty, they would know that "the Wealth of Nations" results from the efforts of innovative individuals, as they go about meeting the needs of others, unburdened by coercive planners and choosers of winners and losers.

Coercive "taking" power, when wielded against the citizenry by either the government alone (taxing), or in combination with another power (unions), is destructive of freedom and prosperity and leads to envy, greed, and want.

The following statement by Sir Winston Churchill, upon leaving office as Prime Minister in 1945, was prophetic for Great Britain, and as it turns out, the United States and the world:

"I do not believe in the power of the State to plan and enforce. No matter how numerous are the committees they set up or the ever-growing hordes of officials they employ or the severity of the punishments they inflict or threaten, they can't approach the high level of internal economic production achieved under free enterprise. Personal initiative, competitive selection, and profit motive corrected by failure and the infinite processes of good housekeeping and personal ingenuity, these constitute the life of a free society. It is this vital creative impulse that I deeply fear the doctrines and policies of the socialist government has destroyed. Nothing that they can plan and order and rush around enforcing will take its place. They have broken the main spring and until we get a new one, the watch wil not go. Set the people free. Get out of the way and let them make the best of themselves. I am sure that this policy of equalizing misery and organizing society--instead of allowing diligence, self-interest and ingenuity to produce abundance--has only to be prolonged to kill this British Island stone dead."

In the early days of America's experiment in liberty, its Founders warned of oppressive taxation by those elected to represent the people. Under their "People's" Constitution, the people were left free, and the government was limited.

While Europe struggled with oppressive government intervention, the genius Founders of America recognized enduring truths about human nature, the human tendency to abuse power, and the possibilities of liberty for individuals. Richard Frothingham's 1872 "History of the Rise of the Republic of the United States," Page 14, contained the following footnote item on the condition of citizens of France:

"Footnote 1. M. de Champagny (Dublin Review, April, 1868) says of France, 'We were and are unable to go from Paris to Neuilly; or dine more than twenty together; or have in our portmanteau three copies of the same tract; or lend a book to a friend: or put a patch of mortar on our own house, if it stands in the street; or kill a partridge; or plant a tree near the road-side; or take coal out of our own land: or teach three or four children to read, . .. without permission from the civil government.'"

Clearly the government of France at that 1868 date laid an oppressive regulatory and tax burden on citizens, robbing them of their Creator-endowed liberty and enjoyment thereof. Frothingham observed that such coercive power constituted "a noble form robbed of its lifegiving spirit."

Thomas Jefferson warned Americans:

"To preserve [the] independence [of the people,] we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:39

Note Jefferson's very last thought here. He declares that when government taxing and debt have reached certain levels, in order for individuals to survive, then their chosen "employment" becomes "hiring ourselves to rivet their (the government's) chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers." Might that account for why it is government employment levels which have risen at such great rates in the past 2 years?

Ahhh, guess that's what you call "redistributing" wealth! In Jefferson's words, it's called "rivet(ing) chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers."

That’s why the GOP primary voters voted for Romney, followed by Santorum (for the Evangelical bloc). They were both big-government, nanny-state guys, little different from Obama, except for their self-serving and often recently “discovered” conservative social positions.

I have to wonder how that’s done. When I had back problems so bad I couldn’t even breathe without it hurting, and had dizzy spells so bad I couldn’t talk straight, I gave in and tried to apply for disability benefits. I was rejected because I “wasn’t disabled enough”.

28
posted on 04/29/2012 10:59:06 AM PDT
by Ellendra
("It's astounding how often people mistake their own stupidity for a lack of fairness." --Thunt)

“Dependent ones are bankrupting the SS system for the elderly who paid into it, undermining it for those who really are disabled, and destroying it for those who are currently paying into it.”

Very true. There is a couple living next to my in-laws in their 40’s with two children. They haven’t worked in 10 years due to disabilities and proudly tell everyone they are on social security disability. His muscle condition prevents him from holding a job but he is able to climb up on his roof, tend a garden, and ride a tractor.

“Dependent ones are bankrupting the SS system for the elderly who paid into it, undermining it for those who really are disabled, and destroying it for those who are currently paying into it.”

Very true. There is a couple living next to my in-laws in their 40’s with two children. They haven’t worked in 10 years due to disabilities and proudly tell everyone they are on social security disability. His muscle condition prevents him from holding a job but he is able to climb up on his roof, tend a garden, and ride a tractor.

We had a couple in their 50s here who got in a dispute with a neighbor and during the course of it, someone mentioned that they both lived on disability. They were both former schoolteachers who had lived here about 5 years, and did nothing but get into disputes with the city or with their neighbors for “disturbing their peace.”

However, in the course of this particular dispute, it emerged that they jogged on the beach every day, had a sailboat and sailed it with no problem, traveled all over the world, etc. They immediately announced that their disabilities were not visible, but I think they blew it, because the last I heard of them, an investigation had been opened. I sure hope they get the max, have to repay every dime and even go to jail.

There are people who actually need assistance, and these self-obsessed, unscrupulous jerks are essentially taking money from the people who need it.

“There are people who actually need assistance, and these self-obsessed, unscrupulous jerks are essentially taking money from the people who need it.”

Unfortunately it is to the advantage of the current administration to expand the rolls of the disabled geometrically. It makes people dependent so they vote Democrat. It also takes them out of the unemployment statistics. If they are collecting disability they aren’t reported as unemployed so the unemployment rate goes down. This is a huge welfare boondoggle positioned as disability and is driving the social security to insolvency quicker than it would go otherwise. No doubt the ultimate goal here is to get to means testing social security quicker so those who have paid in for 30-40 years and saved will not get benefits and those who have developed disabilities at an early age and not paid in will get full benefits.

“Me? I teach my kids to not earn a lot and to barter and grow food so they wont have to support these losers.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

There are plans afoot to try to make that kind of thing illegal and impossible.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.